ไม่สามารถเล่นวิดีโอนี้
ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
Bart Ehrman vs. Internet Atheists
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 มี.ค. 2024
- Recently Bart Ehrman was on Mythvision to discuss if Matthew made an error when citing the Old Testament and his conclusions were quite refreshing. Stephen Boyce joins me to discuss If Matthew made an error in Matthew 21 and what Dr. Ehrman has to say on the issue.
Original video: • Is Bart Ehrman Ignoran...
Stephen’s podcast: podcasts.apple...
You know it's bout to get real when IP pulls up the slides
I love what William Craig says about Erhman...(paraphrasing)there are two Bart's, the scholar Bart and the popular writer Bart. The scholar Bart is very careful in what he says and is fairly conservative in his conclusions IIRC. The popular writer Bart is wildly inaccurate in his critiques and does not follow accepted ways of evaluating historical texts for historicity.
To be honest I think Craig himself sometimes falls victim to that as well in his more low-level debates. It's just the inevitable reality of being a polemicist and scholar at the same time.
@@amu7379 Fair enough. Historical Criterion, which is specifically what Craig accused Ehrman of fumbling is not something I've knowingly seen Craig do, but the rules can be so precise(for example: criterion x can be used to authenticate but not dis-authenticate) that he could have done it without me even knowing.
Tho in Ehrman's case, his follies are often very plain to see beyond the minutiae of historical critiques. He seemingly has no clue what a true contradiction is and instead calls something a contradiction when Matthew and Luke record the same general event but leave out details the other includes, and thus, seems to have no clue how multiple eyewitnesses can tell the same general story and leave out significant details of the other witness.
One of the more baffling is Erhman confusing the laws of nature and the laws of mathematics in refuting the possibility of miracles.
@@mattm7798 imagine quoting willian lane craig, this guys is absolutely trash
Craig is not the most reliable person but nether is Bart.
When I was in college 15 years ago, when Ehrman’s name was mentioned the professors would just chuckle. And no, I didn’t go to a Christian college. It was a secular state university. Everybody knew the guy was a total grifter. His entire career is based on arguing against a small brand of Christianity that most Christians don’t follow at all.
Erhman’s biggest arguments were things like, “In this verse Jesus says X, but in another book he says X but another word is added. Therefore, everyone is lying!”
He has always been insufferable. No one in academia considers him to be a real scholar.
The two-Bart theory is alive and well
U really are an account I look to on tough days, thanks for the content man
I appreciate that
IP will never change his mind despite what critical scholars say (including critical Christian scholars). He's desperate for the Bible to be true and is dishonest like most apologists (whether intentional or not, it's hard to say).
His rational brain should tell him that a primitive Hebrew war/storm god that indulges in animal sacrifices, loves the smell of burnt meat and who battles mythological sea creatures like other fictional gods from ancient Canaan, is obviously man made.
Whether or not there's a supreme being who created the universe, no one knows. But it obviously isn't Yahweh.
---------------------------------------------------------
*The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis.* Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. ***These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.***
*Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer,* translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians ***before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.***
***In revising the Mesopotamian creation story for their own ends, the Hebrew scribes tightened the narrative and the focus but retained the concept of the all-powerful deity who brings order from chaos.*** Marduk, in the Enuma Elish, establishes the recognizable order of the world - *just as God does in the Genesis tale* - and human beings are expected to recognize this great gift and honor the deity through service.
*"Enuma Elish - The Babylonian Epic of Creation - Full Text - World History Encyclopedia"*
*"Sumerian Is the World's Oldest Written Language | ProLingo"*
*"Sumerian Civilization: Inventing the Future - World History Encyclopedia"*
("The Sumerians were the people of southern Mesopotamia whose civilization flourished between c. 4100-1750 BCE."
"Ancient Israelites and their origins date back to 1800-1200 BCE.")
*"The Myth of Adapa - World History Encyclopedia"*
Also discussed by Professor Christine Hayes at Yale University in her 1st lecture of the series on the Hebrew Bible from 8:50 to 14:30 minutes, lecture 3 from 28:30 to 41:35 minutes, lecture 4 from 0:00 up to 21:30 minutes and 24:00 up to 35:30 minutes and lecture 7 from 24:20 to 25:10 minutes.
From a Biblical scholar:
"Many stories in the ancient world have their origins in other stories and were borrowed and modified from other or earlier peoples. *For instance, many of the stories now preserved in the Bible are* ***modified*** *versions of stories that existed in the cultures and traditions of Israel’s* ***older*** *contemporaries.* Stories about the creation of the universe, a cataclysmic universal flood, digging wells as land markers, the naming of important cultic sites, gods giving laws to their people, and even stories about gods decreeing the possession of land to their people were all part of the cultural and literary matrix of the ancient Near East. *Biblical scribes freely* ***adopted and modified*** *these stories as a means to express their own identity, origins, and customs."*
*"Stories from the Bible"* by Dr Steven DiMattei, from his website *"Biblical Contradictions"*
------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, look up the below articles.
*"Yahweh was just an ancient Canaanite god. We have been deceived! - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"*
*"Debunking the Devil - Michael A. Sherlock (Author)"*
*"The Greatest Trick Religion Ever Pulled: Convincing Us That Satan Exists | Atheomedy"*
*"Zoroastrianism And Persian Mythology: The Foundation Of Belief"*
(Scroll to the last section: Zoroastrianism is the Foundation of Western Belief)
*"10 Ways The Bible Was Influenced By Other Religions - Listverse"*
*"January | 2014 | Atheomedy"* - Where the Hell Did the Idea of Hell Come From?
*"Retired bishop explains the reason why the Church invented "Hell" - Ideapod"*
Watch *"The Origins of Salvation, Judgement and Hell"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica
(Sensitive theists should only watch from 7:00 to 17:30 minutes as evangelical Christians are lambasted. He's a former theist and has been studying the scholarship and comparative religions for over 15 years)
*"Top Ten Reasons Noah’s Flood is Mythology - The Sensuous Curmudgeon"*
*"Forget about Noah's Ark; There Was No Worldwide Flood | Bible Interp"*
*"The Search for Noah’s Flood - Biblical Archaeology Society"*
*"Eridu Genesis - World History Encyclopedia"*
*"The Atrahasis Epic: The Great Flood & the Meaning of Suffering - World History Encyclopedia"*
Watch *"How Aron Ra Debunks Noah's Flood"*
(8 part series debunking Noah's flood using multiple branches of science)
*"The Adam and Eve myth - News24"*
*"Before Adam and Eve - Psychology Today"*
*"Gilgamesh vs. Noah - Wordpress"*
*"Old Testament Tales Were Stolen From Other Cultures - Griffin"*
*"Parallelism between “The Hymn to Aten” and Psalm 104 - Project Augustine"*
*"Studying the Bible"* - by Dr Steven DiMattei
(This particular article from a critical Biblical scholar highlights how the authors of the Hebrew Bible used their *fictional* god as a mouthpiece for their own views and ideologies)
*"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history?"* -- by Dr Steven DiMattei
*"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them"* -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei
@@epicofgilgamesh9964 We don;t care what the scholars say - Christian or otherwise - we care what the historical evidence says.
@JM-jj3eg Yes, the historical evidence shows that the Bible is Israelite propaganda. Maybe you should look into it. Try with the references I listed first and then come back.
@@epicofgilgamesh9964 You have some contradictions in your word vomit. If you want to be taken seriously look through your text thoroughly and fix them.
Not a fan of Ehrman, but at least he is more truthful and informed than the clowns at Mythvision and other anti-Christian websites. Great video.
Day seven of asking IP to make a rap song
It would be like this: th-cam.com/video/FELrGXxLRaI/w-d-xo.htmlsi=9GjZvvWai6SSegec
@@InspiringPhilosophy you have 396k subscribers on TH-cam and your have the exact same name as a famous rapper and you know David Wood a.k.a. The king of rhyming. You have everything you need to start your rap career on TH-cam IP so what are you waiting for?
IP needs to stick to apologetics as his rapping probably SUCKS!!!
@@PresidentChristopher give IP a chance
My Brother, IP is the real deal, know what I'm saying? Forcing him wouldn't isn't the way. So just pray about it and if it's the Lords will, he makes a way.
If you would ask someone who knows a bit about animal husbandry they would tell you that often you have to pair animals that have a bond to keep one or both calm especially if one is young and has never been ridden or worked. If the colt is for the first time ridden you would have its mother walk along beside it to keep it calm.
Even if you introduce ad hoc explanations like this, which become more improbable with every detail added, you need to explain why both Luke and Mark (a source for Matthew) say there is one animal, and the Hebrew clearly is talking about a single beast.
@@davethebrahman9870 It's not an ad-hoc explanation, it's an observed fact that a young colt that has never been ridden (something Mark says, so it's not just made up by Matthew) would need it's mother to keep it calm, especially in a crowd. Luke and Mark don't deny the existence of the mother, they are silent on it. And Zehariah the prophet doesn't deny that the colt would have it's mother nearby. How is it that basic logical distinctions don't matter to you people - like the difference between silence and negation?
@@JM-jj3eg Again, you don’t understand. If Jesus did anything so odd as to ride two beasts (something I don’t recall ever happening in the great deal of ancient literature I have read) we might expect Mark to mention it. But more fundamentally, you are treating the gospels as though they were straightforward reportage. We have many reasons to think this is wrong. To begin with, you have forgotten that both Matthew and Luke are using Mark. Matthew’s alteration, dropped by Luke, is very much in accord with his desire to connect Jesus to the ancient scriptures, even with the most forced of intrrpretations.
@@davethebrahman9870 " If Jesus did anything so odd as to ride two beasts..."
Nobody ever suggested that. Matthew certainly didn't. See the video above.
"But more fundamentally, you are treating the gospels as though they were straightforward reportage."
Not at all, I simply pointed out that Luke and Mark don't deny that the mother was nearby, and their silence on the matter doesn't count against the historicity of Matthew's mother donkey. To be clear, I have not made a strong argument for it's historicity either, except a plausibility argument based on general observation. Whether these stories are highly accurate reportage, or highly embellished fables or something in between - none of that changes the fact that this particular argument from silence is worthless. Even if you're right about the overall nature of the Gospels, you need to drop this specific part of this argument in your overall case.
@@JM-jj3eg Not at all. The sort of ad hoc addition you are suggesting is simply not supported by the text. The ‘two beasts’ are very clearly a reference to Zechariah, who is explicitly quoted by Matthew. Speculation about the emotional state of a colt the existence of which is unlikely could hardly be less rigorous in terms of proper analysis. Are you really trying to say that today whenever a colt is ridden for the first time its mother is present? Are you claiming this was the practice among Jews in 1st century Palestine? As for silence, the salient fact is that it gives us no support for your suppositions, in particular given that Luke clearly used Matthew and yet decided to drop one of the two animals. Are you saying that Luke was mistaken, or that he didn’t use Matthew? That is all aside from the fact that the entire ‘triumphal entry’ even in Mark has strong indications of non-historicity, such as the inclusion of the ‘Hosanna’ and palm branches used at Sukkot, not Pesach. (If you want to see this read Mishnah Sukkot and Gemara Sukkot 30b, 31a, 34a and 37a and b)
Yo thank you for the shoutout at the start!! It made my day! God bless!
No need to apologize for saying Ehrman is "ignorant". This is the same guy that'll blast away at our faith in uncharitable ways and as soon as he gets that tone turned back on him, these Atheists start crying over it.
I’m afraid that it is you who is ignorant. I don’t mean that as an insult, simply a statement of fact. To accuse Ehrman of such is simply ludicrous. It’s just that you don’t like his conclusions.
Ehrman fanboy found! @@davethebrahman9870
IP is classy. That’s why he apologized. He doesn’t want any bad blood
this is nuatheism 101. pure aggression and then a massive victim complex if one spark bounces back at them
@@bun197 No, people just get sick of Christians in particular having hissy fits when someone tries to educate them.
The title of Kipp's video is a tad ironic now knowing of that little slip up. No shame on him though, mistakes are a human thing
Thank you IP! It’s a wonderful Live stream and response video as always. Enjoyed every bit of it
When Matthew was quoting from old testament by saying “ To Fulfill this…” He had alot in his mind that his critics who argue that he FLUBBED the Old testament don’t understand because Matthew is Smarter than them.
As Bart Ehrman says
"My stance is that when somebody like Matthew, who really is BRIGHT, in my course, I talk about some things you just wouldn’t notice unless you look really, really close or unless somebody tells you “Matthew got in there” and usually, it shows some kind of cleverness, not stupidity. My thumb rule is when somebody is smart and they say stuff you don’t understand, it might be because they are smarter than you."
- Dr. Bart Ehrman
Thank you for all the work that you accomplish for our benifit. This last year of consuming your content and supporting you has been awesome.
Please keep up the good work. You have inspired me to read several of the books you cite and call me to do research into lots of the topics you go over in search of truth.
Great livestream!
Interesting that in other languages (Slavic languages for example) it reads exactly like a Hebrew poetry pointing to one animal used.
A channel with clever inside jokes work REALLY well, I've seen a few channels explode after inside jokes became regular banter. Mike, enjoy the inside jokes, it is your community bonding.
Always a good sign when you are surprised/worried at how smart your audience is. Ehrman's laugh and then insulting the audience seems telling.
Great video as always. I also find Bart Ehrman to be pretty good most of the time, in terms of being fair and honest. Qualification is needed I think though. Literally today on Dr. Bird’s TH-cam channel I heard him say in his own words, that no Jew contemporaneous with Jesus, would’ve ever thought that there could be a divine Messiah. That’s a gigantic lie and there’s no way he doesn’t know it. He’s good for the most part, but he can sneaky be deceptive. I’m not at all suggesting that all Jews from 3000 or 2000 years ago believed in the Trinity the way modern Christians do or that they all thought, Trinity aside, that the messiah would be fully divine ontologically equal with the father, but to say no Jew could’ve ever thought there could be a divine Messiah? It is impossible he doesn’t know that’s nonsense.
the Bible records multiple people who had knowledge of who Jesus was before he even started his ministry. You have to say those are completely made up.
@@thadofalltrades I am not sure what you mean? We may be agreeing here? Before His ministry….yup! How bout a few thousand years i.e. Abraham in Genesis 18? Many others of course…he didn’t call Him Jesus the way we did but YHWH. My point was Ehrman was lying and he well knows it.
@@ryanparris1021 yes we are agreeing. I was mainly referring to Anna and Simeon, and John the Baptist. There were probably others. There were clearly people at that time who were looking for a divine Messiah because they accurately understood the prophecies about him in the OT. The "you" wasn't directed at you, it was a general "you". Poor writing on my part.
@@thadofalltrades No sweat. It’s a true shame so many don’t know and/or suppress the knowledge that the Messiah would be divine.
Can we actually prove that in the places where the NT seemingly follows the LXX, that the LXX reading is older than the NT reading? In other words, couldn’t it be that the NT writers did NOT quote a greek translation, but translated the actual Hebrew, and then AFTER THAT the greek translations of the OT accommodated their reading according to the NT version of the OT quotation?
Nobody thinks in the folk song "She'll Be Coming Round The Mountain When She Comes" the woman is actually riding six white horses all at once. So if people can understand a children's song, they can understand the two donkeys part in the gospel of Matthew.
It's amazing how otherwise intelligent people completely forget how to read when it comes to the Scriptures.
If the texts were timeless and written by a supernatural force, they would be easy to understand, not look like ramblings or fortune cookie wisdom. The fact that it takes a massive university institution to try to make them look good suggests that they were made by mortal men trying to make sense of their environment like every other story written. Also people are not supposed to live and die by a song. They realize that it's fiction and nobody dedicates their Ph.D to defending the truth of some song, movie or video game.
@@miesvaillanykyisyytta3252 And the book (Matthew) was easy to understand to the target demographic, first century Jews. So it makes sense that some to the symbolism and writing styles is difficult to us almost 2000 years later. But the main important parts are pretty easy to understand, the gospel, loving neighbors, loving God. The stuff that is really important is pretty simple.
@@miesvaillanykyisyytta3252 Also my point is that some people aren't being charitable with that one verse, when we have similar expressions in our language today that no one has a problem understanding.
@@miesvaillanykyisyytta3252 that's the point. This passage does not require a PhD to decipher, but otherwise intelligent people like Bart Ehrman completely forget how to read even this very easy to understand text. My son who is just learning to read can comprehend it.
Darrick from Mythvision is so cringe, like, I like all the scholars he brings on his channel, but the worst part about his channel is him. It's so hard to watch and listen to him talk about anything.
For sure
I personally think the same thing about IP.....but to each their own.
@@thedude0000 The difference between IP & Derick is IP is a content creator based on his own research & education, while Darrick doesn’t create content, he hosts intellectuals & scholars who talk about their studies & research. Hell, if it wasn’t for Robert R. Price, who Darrick threw under the bus, Darrick wouldn’t have the connects that he does with academics.
@@shenron7x Again, you find Derick cringe & I find IP cringe. We just have different opinions.
Was that video sped up because both Ehrman and Darrick seem to be talking at beyond Ben Shapiro level speeds lol?
I admire your heart and do what you want, who am I to tell you but for what it’s worth, an Apology wasn’t necessary. You said he seemed ‘woefully ignorant on the topic’ you didn’t call he himself an ignorant man. If someone is adamantly professing a stop sign is a square, it’s fair to say they seem ignorant on what an octagon is.
Why does everyone want IP to make a rap song? Everyone knows hes more of a grind core kinda guy
Would love if a debate between you two on this subject could be coordinated. Would be nice to hear you guys directly respond to each other’s arguments rather than doing it over the course of 6+ livestreams
40:20 Wait?? Did Ehrman actually update his view on something???? That's amazing. I can't remember where I heard it, maybe it was one of your previous streams, but it was said something like, "Ehrman is kind of like someone who learned a whole bunch of stuff and then quit researching, assuming he had learned all he needed to know about a topic, even in the face of criticism/questions pointing toward other scholars who disagree." I thought that was spot on. (i actually realize that it was on one of your streams now). He just hasn't dug into Matthew stuff for years and years and has simply written off whatever he might have read that disagreed with him. Glad to hear him actually say that Matthew wasn't stupid and couldn't understand what he was reading.
He does that. He used to say no one wrote about Jesus in the 1st century outside of the Bible. He changed that belief quickly too.
Honestly this Ehrman doesn't come across as genuine with this hollow laugh and the visible conceit of the lot of them makes me proud to be part of a religion where humility is front and center. I think atheist ex-fundies are (literally) hell-bent on tearing it all down because they can't bear that they missed the whole point twice.
The apophatic point of Christianity is best expressed in the poetry of Ephrem & Isaac the Syrians, Jacob of Serugh, Narsai, and similar, but it's not expressed in words but in the ineffable truth around which the words revolve.
As much as all us spiritually afflicted are driven to think things out and proudly cling to our rational conclusions, so much we need to be saved, with the aid of the higher power, as with any addiction.
He does that laugh often no matter what he's talking about. It's part of his personality
@@paradisecityX0 then maybe he could use some therapy. Inauthenticity not good
Mike Winger laughs constantly, even when talking about Hell and genocide. It’s very odd. WLC laughs, or at least carries a light tone at very odd times. By contrast, IP sounds like he’s pissed off even at his most happy (I assume?) or when speaking of pleasant topics. At least Ehrman laughs when he’s speaking about things he truly find humorous. He’s a very happy man. No therapy needed.
@@BigIdeaSeeker laughing or not isn't the thing. his laugh sounds contrived
@@Roman-Pregolin Got it. Mike Winger? WLC? Totally contrived sounding. I know Bart, have had had lunch with him several times. He is extremely genuine. And very happy. I don’t like WLC’s thinking or Winger’s theology. Their laughs bother me to no end. Could that be related? Possibly, even likely. But there’s no sense in complaining about it or pointing it out. It’s really unbecoming in a conversation, especially if the conversation is about matters of truth. Back to it- Bart is one of the most genuine and caring human beings I know. He’s not out “to get Christianity”, but so vilified by Christians.
It’s funny I could never debate an atheist because I don’t just believe based off blind faith or the historical accuracy of gods word because of what I’ve seen before and been through so I would just give my personal testimony on what I seen and that would be that his whole atheistic belief would be destroyed
Bart is an internet atheist with extra steps 😂
OMG, one awkwardly worded sentence therefore Matthew DEBUNKED….🤦♂️… nah Bart Simpson could make better arguments.
That's what you understood from all that? They just focus on one part at issue. Which supposedly is inspired by the spirit of God, and is contradicting other texts about the same event.
ehrman never said that matthew is debunked or that mistakes in the bible mean the bible is false, you are misrepresenting his position, like the muslims do
@@JesseMeijer that’s what he was getting at..
Anyone who has interacted with them for any meaningful length of time knows that atheists and pagans will use any perceived flaw in Christianity as an excuse to dismiss it.
@ineternitypast I'd say the accumulation of all of the flaws, contradictions, and issues (like biblical morality and modern reinterpretation) are more than enough reason to reject the Bible as the infallible word of God.
@@JesseMeijer *perceived flaws and contradictions, like the ones discussed constantly by IP and others
And the Bible justifies an objective moral standard, whats your alternative 🤨
What's most obvious, IMO, is that Ehrman doesn't know who he's dealing with here 🤣 Most TH-cam apologist can be dismissed easily on account of poor, or at least not enough, research. But IP is a research BEAST.
The fact that you’re wearing the same shirt in both videos
Oh wait… it’s just the same color
😂
I don't see a problem even in someone writing something weird in the gospels, if it were so. The gospels are inspired to contain the essence of the message, not to trancend completely the person writing and his misconceptions and misrememberings. They do not fail in that, but we often fail in discerning what that message is.
This is not to say I think this thing is an error, but that I don't think we need to be so riled up about every little detail. Inspired primarily means touched by the actual events that took place, and only exceptionally means directly dictated by Gods voice in some eternal manner, to the extent that can occur in a human language.
Would you debate bart Erhman on Gospel authorship
I would love to see this
Bart is smart but makes dumb conclusions
Btw, Can I know why Matthew says there are two animals where no other Gospel says it? What’s your conclusion on it?
The author suggests that Matthew's mention of two animals might be to align with Zechariah's prophecy, which refers to both a mother and a foal. Even though the prophecy likely refers to only one animal, Matthew, being aware of the presence of two animals, might have included both to reflect the poetic wording of the prophecy and to add a creative twist to his narrative concept of "fulfillment." This interpretation suggests that Matthew's addition of the second animal is not simply a misunderstanding of the prophecy but a deliberate literary device to emphasize fulfillment and align with the poetic nature of the text.
Also, there are plenty of examples in the NT of one gospel saying 1 man, or 1 angel, and focusing on that one individual, while others mention two. I think there were two animals(a mother and colt), but the prophecy either referred to just one, or two, and Matthew mentioned the mother and the colt.
I fail to see any sort of error or contradiction unless your goal was to find errors in the NT. @@Akhilch_7
Did you watch the video? Hebrew poetic parallelism suggested two animals but meant only one. Yet when the disciples came to untie the donkey, she really did have a colt that followed along. Matthew may have been tongue-in-cheek clever here.
1:10:00 to 1:18:00 for the mic drop
Indeed. It was amazing comeback. Sometimes, the debater relies that we don't do our homework, and it's amazing when we do and we show it.
When someone gifts memberships, TH-cam has them select who gets the memberships
are you gonna respond to the prophet zods video on the reserurection?
Mike, I’ve been following your channel for a while now, initially drawn in by your confident presentations and insightful discussions on Christianity. However, recent developments have left me deeply disillusioned. Your attempt to refute Bart Ehrman’s arguments in your latest video not only fell short but also highlighted a concerning trend in your content.
It’s evident that you lack the academic rigor and expertise necessary to engage in the kind of scholarly discourse you often attempt. While your presentation may be polished and your voice commanding, it’s becoming increasingly clear that you’re out of your depth when it comes to grappling with the complexities of biblical scholarship.
Your reliance on non-Christian sources like Dale Allison to bolster your arguments, while simultaneously trying to maintain a facade of confidence, is disheartening. It’s as if you’re trying to play in the big leagues of biblical scholarship without putting in the necessary work to earn your place there.
Furthermore, your response to being called out by Ehrman and other scholars only serves to undermine your credibility further. Instead of acknowledging your limitations and committing to a more humble and intellectually honest approach, you continue to double down on your misguided assertions.
As someone who once looked up to you as a beacon of intellectual Christianity, I implore you to reconsider your approach. Your overconfidence is not only damaging to your own reputation but also to the broader community of believers who may be influenced by your content. It’s time to acknowledge that you’re not a scholar and approach these topics with the humility they deserve.
Stop pretending to be something you’re not, Mike. Take a step back, reassess your approach, and perhaps consider engaging with genuine scholars in a more meaningful and respectful manner. Your audience deserves better than the half-baked arguments and intellectual arrogance you’ve been peddling lately.
Sincerely,
Fergie
Hi Inri247,
I agree. While some critiques of Mike may be lacking, it doesn’t change the fact that he’s intellectually dishonest. His channel, Inspiring Philosophy, presents itself as engaging with scholarship, but only selectively so. Mike cherry-picks scholars like Bart Ehrman to bolster his arguments while ignoring their expertise when it challenges his theological beliefs.
He conveniently invites Ehrman to discuss Revelation but avoids his insights on Jesus, revealing his cherry-picking tendencies. Mike’s theological positions are a mishmash of contradictory ideas, conveniently sidestepping inconsistencies.
Despite claiming to be an intellectual Christian, Mike’s arguments lack depth and coherence. He’s more concerned with being seen as a hero for Christianity than engaging in genuine scholarship. Over time, his channel has deteriorated, and it’s clear he’s out of his depth. Mike should consider aligning himself with scholars like John Dominic Crossan or Dale Allison if he honestly wants to maintain credibility.
Thank you!✌️
What exactly is the factual inaccuracy that you are charging IP with? Just because Bart Ehrman "calls him out" on something, he doesn't have to fold and give in, especially when the facts are on IP's side.
The bookshelf looks fresh. If you want to bring it to another level, you could do a Pimp my bookshelf series and finally outrank Winger. He's been too long at the top of the bookshelf game. But everything respectfully and as brothers in Christ. Now back to the video.
Another thing I forgot to mention is by speeding up the replay of the videos, it is incredibly difficult to follow along. If it’s not important, cut it out of the clip. If it is important, then let it play at regular speed so the viewer has time to process what is being said.
Bart Ehrman is hard to dislike. He's personable and not the mean-spirited type with the ill intentions of trying to rain on everybody parade. He just goes where he feels the evidence leads, but his past fundamentalism still haunts him.
I wouldn’t say he always goes to where the evidence leads my friend, sometimes he gets pretty wild with his conclusions
@@bikesrcool_1958 Where he _feels_ the evidence leads.
Although I disagree with him, I don’t think he’s “lying” or anything. I think he misrepresents things sometimes, but not intentionally.
@endygonewild2899 Kipp on the other hand, does lie as he misrepresents
@@paradisecityX0 yep. I’ve interacted with him on twitter. He commits a lot of fallacies.
to be fair Ehrman here is responding to people explaining what an unknown person apparently said about his position
Iron Mike, like mike Tyson, because you're knocking people out with facts.
Stephen Boyce, I believe the book you're referencing at 54:00 is God History and Dialectics
I wish I could find it; there is a Jewish scholar who used the presence of word puns that work in Hebrew and Aramaic to demonstrate that Mathew was probably originally in Hebrew or Aramaic then translated to Greek.
What is with these atheists seemingly doing apologetics for atheism?
The new atheists started an evangelical atheism trend.
@@tinyjim123 Odd, it's quite contrary to the worldview.
@@Shane_The_Confessor that said, I'm not sure that all the TH-cam atheists are necessarily that type. Some of them are fairly gracious and are more interested in providing a space for those who have lost their faith than bring evangelical atheists. I haven't found many TH-cam atheists that aren't completely insufferable though, unfortunately.
Do you believe my position of atheism - to suspend any acknowledgment as to the reality of any particular god until sufficient credible evidence is presented - to be a _rationally justified_ one?
@@Theo_Skeptomai No, sir.
Watch how murkyvision comes back with another one.
Like I said murkyvision is coming up with a followup video. How predictable.
Debate Bart, or have a discussion with him :)
No InspiringPhilosophy, don't make a rap song (yet).
Play Elden Ring instead, do a Christian Gameplay of it in which you explain the games philosophy too (its very cool and George RR Martin helped with the lore)
Anything to avoid finishing his books I guess
Sometimes I almost feel like Bart is on playing both sides. When he speaks with Christian’s he’s agnostic. When he’s speaking with agnostics he’s almost making a case for Christianity 😅
Good point. William Lane Craig cited an example (I'm paraphrasing)of Erhman being on a show, and the person asked him what the OG new testament manuscripts said, and Bart was confused. He replied well they basically said what we have now, despite in his popular works, he reams the NT for being lost to time in some sense because we only of the manuscript differences.
You don’t understand. On questions of scholarship he is interested in the truth, not in pushing a metaphysical narrative. It is because they do this that the majority of Christian scholars can’t be trusted.
@@davethebrahman9870 Erhmann's biases are just as obvious as you say Christians are. So he should not be trusted either.
He is Janus-faced for sure.
@@mysotiras21 Just shows why he shouldn’t be trusted. A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.
Wouldn't the Rabiinical tradition hamonization theory imply that it SHOULD read "daughters of zion"? So, in a sense that refutation of Kipp, also refutes that explanation of the two donkeys?
Rap song when ?
I would appreciate if you could change the focus when you are playing an internet video and pause the video. The viewer is stuck viewing paused faces while the people talking are small and isolated to the side of the screen. Perhaps you could find a producer of your clips that could deal with this on the fly so you don’t have to bother.
Day 2 of asking IP to breakdance
@@milk-man7964 day 3?
Hey, Mike. A kid can understand Hebrew parallelism, even if he doesn't know the term. I started reading my Bible, aged 11, and got no church input or other Christian input till I was 17, and I remember noticing the parallelism. It's not rocket science. It's ridiculous to suggest that Matthew had no idea about this. I taught EFL for a bit and that parallelism influenced how I taught without my realising it till later- I would give 2 or 3 parallel examples. I only realised it wasn't normal, when I was doing a diploma in it and the assessors failed me at that initial point, because they told me I needed to use just one context- but in retrospect, given that most of classes were Arab, and they always related really well to that way of teaching, I imagine that I could have justified it if I'd known how- but more to the point, Jesus uses multiple-context parallel parables, do it's clearly a feature of his teaching. If Matthew records any of these, then obviously he's aware of this.
Bravo! I had a similar experience. Started to read the Bible at 6; by age 12 I understood that the Old Testament poetry used parallelism, even though I didn't know that world. It really isn't rocket science. I never got any adult guidance when reading the Bible, either, so I drew my own conclusions. I swiftly realized that it was far more complex and nuanced than we were taught in church or Sunday school.
@@mysotiras21Thanks for sharing that- and a 2-minute look at Matthew does indeed show him recording Jesus using parallelism- a city on a hill, a lamp on a stand- sun on the good and the bad, rain, etc- and I'm pretty sure that we will find this in Jesus's teaching here in Matthew right the way through- in a way, that's what a parable is doing- it's filling it out further. Perhaps you could say that parallelism is like vision from 2 eyes rather than just one. It's surprising how that small gap between our eyes and that subtle difference in each viewpoint combine to make a much fuller vision.
@@tommarshall7247, love your human eye illustration of parallelism. It makes great sense. Thanks for sharing.
I was really disappointed by MythVision’s editing of your response video, it reflected poorly on him. It felt like he went for maximum controversy without any concern for meaningful discussion.
The title of this video should be Bart erhman and internet atheists in conflict 😊
I thought Bart Ehrman had cornered the market on internet atheism (as far as biblical scholarship goes)? Is there any other Bible scholar that online atheists draw from? If so, I've never seen one.
I look at Michael Jones' body behaviour, and see a manic personality. Is he manically inspired, or just manic and wrong?
these things have explanations, and going over them, after a while is....like....get a grip.......
The word is rabbinic, not rabbitic. They weren't taught by rabbits.
I watched this whole stream waiting for an update on the new rap single and got nothing. What a scam.
Viva Cristo Rey!
I agree, you should definitely make a rap song
🤨
The oneplus does well. I slightly prefer the S24 ultra though
Bart is using the drama to get people to take his class.
I can’t stand listening to Ehrman with his stupid breathy laugh in every sentence
He’s a happy guy. Truly. Others can’t stand listening to IP’s angry tone all the time. Or Mike Winger’s untimely and constant laughs even when talking about Hell and genocide. Do you have to like the tone of voice, inflection, cadence, demeanor of everyone you listen to? Or is it about information? What an odd thing you’ve pointed out here.
@@BigIdeaSeeker just don’t care for it that’s all
@@reedhendges2094 Sure. You’re welcome to it. Just a silly thing to bother with when there are more important things to discuss. Cheers. *snicker-snicker* ;)
You buy ebooks??? Don't they just appear online and magically in you library.... 😅
The Greek of Matthew 21 is not at all ambiguous when read in context. In Mark it is clear that Jesus is sending for a single donkey. Matthew then refers to a pair of animals, in 21:2 and in the rest of the passage. My own view is that Matthew is a subtle and considered author, and so almost certainly isn’t making a dumb mistake; but he also isn’t giving an accurate account of what actually happened, if anything.
The ambiguous statement was in reference to verse 7 not verse 2. It was in reference to the sitting on the cloaks or donkeys or both. You misunderstood what was being said there.
@@EarlyChurchFACTS Sorry, you’re right, I meant to say Mark in the first instance. I’ve corrected it above.
@@EarlyChurchFACTS My point here is that there is no ambiguity in Matthew’s Greek, it is clear that αυτων refers to the donkeys in both sentences, as Greek retains the last subject with subsequent pronouns in following clauses.
or Mark just didn't feel it necessary to include the 2nd animal. If there are two, then it's also true there is just one. John does this with Mary Magdalene and leaving out the other women recorded in the other gospels, yet when she goes to tell Peter and John she says "we." This could also be an issue of the source for each story. Mark's source remembers one animal, Matthew's remembers two. You saying it isn't ambiguous is your opinion. There are people who disagree and they have fancy titles like PhD and so forth. This is not a hill that any skeptic should die on. It's clear Matthew knew Hebrew and even if he made up a second animal for purely literary purposes, so what? The focus is on the person of Jesus, not the asses, but skeptics seem to want to focus on the other side.
@@thadofalltrades If Jesus did something so strange as ride two donkeys, why wouldn’t Mark say so? That is aside from the fact that we know Matthew is using Mark as a source, and we can’t know he had others as opposed to making things up.
So the consensus is 12th level intellect playing 4d chess
As a new Christian, I find all this discussion sooooo confusing. Is Jesus the Son of God or not? Who cares about one or two donkeys?!!!!
bart ' 50k biblical manuscripts no two alike. 500k net testament contradictions. none of the gospels were written by any apostle. all are in greek ' muslim 2002
Matthew probably knew some Hebrew and Aramaic, but his frequent use of the LXX suggests that his Hebrew wasn’t great. The LXX is full of absolute howlers, sometimes a dozen in a single chapter. No one would use it in the first instance if they had a close knowledge of the Hebrew.
Not true at all. If you’re writing in Greek to Greek readers it would make more sense to use the Greek translation not the Hebrew. Furthermore, the Greek was seen as inspired by all Jews even Hebrew speaking ones. The Hebrew was not seen as superior to Jews of this time like today. It makes more sense to use their Greek translation instead of his own.
@@sweetxjc Of course that’s true, but I’m talking about drawing theological positions from the LXX, particularly the prophecies, not simply the transmission of such propositions.
Also to keep in mind, Greek was a more precise language than Hebrew. But nothing about how Matthew's account reads tells me Matthew didn't know Hebrew lol@@sweetxjc
@@mattm7798I agree! I’ve never seen someone determine how well someone knows English by seeing how well they write in German. It’s a ridiculous claim. There’s no way to show that. I hope more people see how silly it is.
@@mattm7798 Yes, but again you seem to miss the point. It is irrelevant that Greek is more precise, because it is a translation from the Hebrew. So the (poor) translation simply takes the reader further from the original meaning of the less precise text.
You guys don't do books well. The bible, these textbooks, you are only going to them cause it's nailed to the page, letting you distort its meaning. You have a guy who writes the textbooks, talking to you; but you decide to argue with him, like a precocious student the whole class is tiring of rapidly.
There's is panic in your voice until you read from your text. Listen back, see if I am wrong. Your whole being is relaxed when you can go back to a paragraph. You get your swagger back, and youknow what happened in the 13th C before Christ lost his sandals.
This Stephen sounds knowledgeable, but is he intelligent? From a lay person's point of view, all we won't to know is, Jesus the Son of God, or a false Prophet? Am I to believe the Scriptures or the secular viewpoint?
Bart absolutely nail it
God bless all those sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ, our Lord & Savior, the one and only God
Isn't it a fact Matthew was first written in Hebrew?
There is no evidence suggesting the author of Matthew was written in Hebrew.
Yes it was since it was written to a Jewish audience
@@Theo_SkeptomaiThere is circumstantial evidence (quotes from church fathers) but no direct evidence.
@axderka I am not aware of a single paleographer who concludes that the gospel known as 'Matthew' was a translation from Hebrew. The ones of which I am aware conclude that Koine appears to be the original language in which this text was written.
Not a fact, just a theory.
BETTER IF GOD JUST SHOW UP AND GET HER STUFF TOGETHER! RIDING ON TWO DONKEYS OR IF SNAKES AN DONKEYS CAN TALK !!!
If you with your mouth confesses that Jesus is Lord & dead for are sins, and in your heart believe that God raised him from the died, then you will be saved.
Repent from sin and follow the Lord.
Too much time on personal chit chat at beginning. No one but you cares about your book shelves.
Two OTHER bullshit contradictions that really fucking piss me off, and got me cursing God violently:
1.) The woman anointing Jesus's feet: in John it was at Mary and Martha's house, but in the Synoptics, it was at Simon the LEPERS... the leper? Why didn't Jesus HEAL SIMON THE LEPER?
2.) In John, at the pool of Siloam, why didn't Jesus heal ALL those waiting for the moving of the water, if this story was true? Don't you think all these sick people would've asked Jesus to heal THEM?
I'm going to take a stab here. 1) Simon the Leper - because there were many Simon's and it's a description of which Simon. It's quite possible Jesus did heal him, it's just not mentioned.
2) The pool of Salome was a pagan place of worship/belief. Jesus healed the man there for a specific reason related to his mission. Jesus didn't heal absolutely everyone around him. Not does God do so either.
Regarding 1, it's possible that Simon the leper in the Synoptics is Lazarus in John, in which case he most definitely did heal him.
How old are you?
51@@calebadcock363
None of these are contradictions. That's not what contradiction means. And if you consider these so extreme, it says more about your own heart than God.
That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the LORD said, my spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be a hundred and twenty years.
There were giants in the earth in those days; and also, after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Just how many sons did god have?
If the Israelites are the children of God, wouldn't they also qualify as sons of God? You don't understand the type of literature you are reading.
@@m_d1905 Not as it is stated. The Bible.
ALL angels and humans are sons of God. There is only ONE "monogenes" Son of God, however. Please learn the difference. This question is old and stale.
@@mysotiras21 Just where in the bible does it make that assertion. It clearly says that the sons of god would take upon them the daughter of men. No where does it say anything about them being angels. If what you believe is true, why make the distinction. Between the sons of gods, and the daughters of men. If all men are the son of god. Why not say and men took upon them daughters of other men. Maybe because they were trying to explain where the other men came from. And it also says there were Gants in the land. Didn't say were they came from, just that they were there. It might be stale for your liking, but it is still valid.
@@comeasyouare4545, YAWN. I make the distinction because the BIBLE ITSELF makes the distinction. You would KNOW this had you EVER bothered to actually READ and STUDY the Bible, instead of relying upon searches of Prophet Google.
great video as always, like the haircut btw...
Bart's haircut?